Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core Review: GF110 On A Diet

Features
By published

Ready for a limited edition graphics card? The GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448 Core just landed. Learn how it differs from the GeForce GTX 560 Ti, why its life will be be short, if it's a decent performer, and what we can do with this thing overclocked.

Benchmark Results: Batman: Arkham City

Batman: Arkham City is an interesting game to benchmark. The DirectX 11 tessellation and MVSS/HBAO options absolutely cripple frame rates. This is a known issue, and the developer is working on a title update to address it. In the meantime, PC gamers have to be wondering how Rocksteady missed an issue that affects every DirectX 11-based graphics card during its own testing.

In any case, we benchmarked the game with tessellation set to normal and MVSS/HBAO enabled:

Clearly, the GeForce cards dominate this game with DirectX 11 enhancements turned on, which is not much of a surprise since this is an Nvidia TWIMTBP title.

The sad part is that I don’t consider any of these results to be playable. Check the minimum frame rates; none of these cards can handle this console port without obvious slowdowns, at least until DirectX 11 support is fixed.

Now let’s disable MVSS/HBAO and tessellation to see what kind of performance we get:

Now we see 30 FPS+ minimum frame rates on all cards, even at 2560x1600 with 8x MSAA enabled. AMD's Radeon-based boards lead. Considering the ultra-smooth frame rates, though, that lead is hardly notable.

73 Comments Comment from the forums
  • borden5
    this one trade blows with 6950 2gb and cost about $30 more hm?
    Reply
  • tmk221
    nice gpu but it's to expensive compared to 6950...
    Reply
  • Ernst56
    I just recently replaced an aging 8800 GTS with the 2GB Twin Frozr 560TI card. I have a large case with 7 fans and with a fan profile running the Twin Frozr at 70%, I can overclock to well past 570 performance.

    Since I got the card, with a game, for $249, I'm very happy. An hour of MW3 or SC2 at max settings shows a max temp of 53C.
    Reply
  • nhat11
    In the battlefield 3 tests, why aren't the testers testing the settings on Ultra? I don't care about settings on high.
    Reply
  • borden5
    thanks for great article, does anyone notice the 6950 1gb vs 2gb give same performance even tho at higher resolution ??
    Reply
  • cleeve
    nhat11In the battlefield 3 tests, why aren't the testers testing the settings on Ultra? I don't care about settings on high.
    Because none of these cards are fast enough to run on Ultra unless you're going to drop resolution, and nobody buys this class of card to run below 1080p.

    We try to make our benchmark settings realistic, not theoretical.
    Reply
  • jimmy-bee
    Wow, I hate to see the death of 1920 x 1200 resolution monitor to be replaced by 1080P. But liked this benchmark since I have a 560Ti. Always used Tom's benchmarks to help me decide on video cards.
    Reply
  • I'm with nhat11.

    I play my BF3 on Ultra settings and 1080p with the 6950 2GB. Ans this is not "theoretical". So if the framerate its 10fps everybody should know.

    Reply
  • dontcrosthestreams
    "the nordics".......skyrim joke please.
    Reply
  • wolfram23
    I always find it almost shocking that the 6950 1gb and 2gb models have basically identical framerates even at 2560x1600 in all of these super demanding games. Do we really need more than 1gb VRAM? I always think about going triple monitors, and always think my 1gb is going to be a drawback...
    Reply